Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Lord Turnbull Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on this amendment and will not comment, of course, from the perspective of the Royal Bank of Scotland. I will take your Lordships back to when I first worked at the Treasury, many years ago, when I was on secondment from my firm at the time. That was when there were lots of nationalised industries in the public sector. Worthy civil servants—and worthy Treasury civil servants, too—thought they knew how to manage the relationships between these large, complex, commercial organisations. They did not do it well. It was the right decision, therefore, when the previous Labour Government started to accrete new, substantial holdings in commercial organisations, to set up an arm’s length relationship to professionalise the handling of those organisations and their ultimate disposal, and to recognise, as that Government did at the time, that those holdings were not to be long-term holdings. I criticised the previous Government because it was not set up by statute, but in a shroud of secrecy without proper accountability arrangements in place. I believe, however, that the principle that civil servants are not the right people to manage these complex relationships with sophisticated organisations is the right one.

[Lord Turnbull (CB)]

My Lords, there was a similar organisation set up in my time, the Shareholder Executive. The Shareholder Executive is a body attached to BIS, as it is now called, and it creates a centre of expertise for the management of shareholders. What it does not do is claim to be the decision-maker. It is all very well to have the expertise—we need the expertise—but there is a pretence that decisions relating to RBS and LBG are being taken by UKFI as opposed to being taken by the Treasury on the advice of UKFI. It is a pretence that when it suits you, you can decide, and when it suits you, you can hand it on to someone else.

At the moment, with the change of leadership in RBS—the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, may not want to comment on this—we do not know whether that was a decision of the RBS board, UKFI or the Treasury. It ought to be clear who took that decision. You can have an advisory body—in this case, almost an executive body—but not one that claims to be the decision-maker, which is the pretence of the UKFI situation.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)]

My Lords, the intention of the amendment is to transfer into HM Treasury the function of managing the Government’s shareholdings, in particular in RBS and Lloyds. As my noble friend Lord Lawson has pointed out, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Mansion House speech in June, has already made it clear that he rejects this particular PCBS recommendation.

As has been pointed out in a number comments already, UKFI was not a creature set up by this Government; it was set up by the previous Government when they made the initial capital injections into RBS, Lloyds, Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley, with the idea of being able to manage these investments on an arm’s-length commercial basis. So that was the genesis.

This group works closely with the management of RBS and Lloyds to assure itself of their approach to the strategy and to hold management to account for their performance. RBS and Lloyds are led by their management and board in the interests of all shareholders, including the taxpayer. So, while it may be possible to imagine different arrangements to fulfil these objectives—you can make the arguments and the pros and cons of the different ways of doing it—the current ones work well, as my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones has said, and it would not make sense to change them at this stage. So, just as my noble friend Lord Lawson said it is a simple amendment, there is a simple reason to reject it—it does not make any practical sense. UKFI is working fine and the time and effort it would take to pull it back into the Treasury and to reorient all that work there would distract our efforts on the important work that is currently going on.

My noble friend Lord Lawson referred to the review at RBS in particular, which we are two-thirds of the way through, and the bad bank/good bank option. I am afraid I am going to disappoint my noble friend. I am not going to tell him what the result is but it will be ready this autumn and we will announce the outcome and the rationale behind it. The matter is being pursued with great urgency and the last thing we want to do at the moment is to destabilise the arrangements for conducting that important analysis, which is really the most important thing.

I reiterate that UKFI is staffed by some very good top people. I have worked with them and I have seen the work that they do. Frankly, we have been able to recruit top-class people to do this work on our behalf. I can assure the Committee that the Government continue to value the role that they play. It was demonstrated again, as my noble friend pointed out, by the role they played in advising the Chancellor on the successful divestment of 15.5% of the Government’s shareholding in Lloyds at 75p per share. They will carry on looking at the full range of options for RBS and managing the timing of the subsequent tranches of the sale of Lloyds back into private ownership.

I am grateful to the PCBS and the noble Lord for raising these issues, but the Government consider that UKFI has a vital role to play which it is performing well. I therefore cannot support the amendment and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deighton]

Noble Lords will know that the Chancellor has already set out at the Mansion House the next stage of the Government’s plan to take the banking system from rescue to recovery. For Lloyds, the Chancellor has taken the first steps to return Lloyds to the private sector and will continue to consider options for further share sales. Value for money for the taxpayer will be the overriding consideration for disposals. There is no pre-fixed timescale for share sales and, given the size of the taxpayer’s stake in Lloyds, the disposal process is likely to involve further multiple stages over time.

For RBS, however, share sales are still some way off. We discussed this earlier when we debated my noble friend Lord Lawson’s amendment. The Treasury is currently examining the case for creating a bad bank for RBS risky assets. As discussed, this review is still ongoing and will be published later in the autumn. Setting out public options for structural change may be advisable in some cases, as the Chancellor’s announcement of the RBS bad bank review makes clear. However, the Government will need to judge in each case whether to do so, given the risk of generating uncertainty and speculation about likely outcomes.

Similarly, selling large numbers of shares in the market is a very commercially sensitive matter: for example, in the case of Lloyds. Any communications from government in advance of placing shares could be destabilising and affect the price that the Government get for the shares. Publication of a report as outlined in the proposed amendment could undermine the Government’s ability to sell shares quickly in favourable market conditions. This could significantly reduce value for money for the taxpayer in that case.

The Government firmly agree that all the topics set out in the amendment need to be carefully considered by any Government in making their decisions relating to the sale of banking assets. UKFI, which we talked about earlier, was established with a very clear emphasis on value for money in executing its core mandate of devising means of exiting the Government’s shareholdings in the banks. In doing so, it is required to pay due regard to the maintenance of financial stability and act in a way that promotes competition.

The amendment seeks to improve accountability. Many mechanisms already provide accountability. On value for money, the Government are scrutinised against the general principles set out in the Green Book. UKFI is also accountable to Parliament through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and has a mandate to secure value for money for the taxpayer. Moreover, the Treasury and UKFI are accountable directly, through the accounting officer mechanism, to the National Audit Office and to the Public Accounts Committee. Indeed, UKFI published a report, following the sale of Northern Rock, setting out the rationale for returning the bank to the private sector at that time. The National Audit Office completed a review of the sales process and published a lengthy report on it, which was considered at a session of the Public Accounts Committee.

The sale of Northern Rock demonstrated the Government’s commitment to transparency on the sale of their banking assets and the ability for bodies such as the National Audit Office and Parliament to scrutinise the decisions of government on these matters. Finally, the Government are accountable for their decision to Parliament, including through the Treasury Select Committee and in public debate. Overall, it is not clear what value would be added by this mandatory reporting requirement and it might well be detrimental to the objectives it aims to deliver, particularly to value for money. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore agree to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Turnbull (CB)]

The first half of a paragraph in the PCBS report asked for a report on the good bank/bad bank option by September: it is going to be a bit late but we are told it is coming soon. The next two or three sentences were on the same subject as the amendment: looking at a wider range of options. Is the Minister telling the House that the Government will fulfil the first half of this PCBS recommendation but not the second half?

[Lord Deighton]

The Government will announce the conclusions of the good bank/bad bank review and the rationale for why that is the option being pursued. We will be addressing the second half of the undertaking in describing the rationale.

[Lord Turnbull]

The Government have got to good bank status with RBS. Are they not proposing to do any further analysis on what might happen to the good bank bit that remains?

[Lord Deighton]

The first thing we have to determine is what we are proposing to do with the good bank/bad bank. Does the split make sense and on what basis does it work? We will subsequently look at what we do with the separate parts.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Turnbull]

104E: Before Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Definition of “bank”
(1) In sections (Meetings between regulators and bank auditors, Leverage ratio, Proprietary trading, Remuneration code, Powers of regulator where Bank receiving State support, Special measures, and Regulatory accounts) “bank” means a UK institution which—
(a) has permission under Part 4A of FSMA 2000 (permission to carry on regulated activities) to carry on the regulated activity of accepting deposits; or(b) is an investment firm within the meaning of that Act (see section 424A of that Act).(2) But “bank” does not include an insurer.
(3) In this section—
(a) “UK institution” means an institution which is incorporated in, or formed under the law of any part of, the United Kingdom;(b) “insurer” means an institution which is authorised under this Act to carry on the regulated activity of effecting or carrying out contracts of insurance as principal. (4) Subsections (1)(a) and (3)(b) are to be read in accordance with section 22, taken with Schedule 2 and any order under section 22.”

[Lord Turnbull]

My Lords, this is an amendment to which we have returned on a number of occasions and which is quite fundamental to the Bill. It raises the question of what is a bank and defines who comes within the scope of the various regimes, sanctions, penalties, or whatever. There was a feeling when we last discussed this that defining a bank around whether it took deposits was too narrow and that there could be people who could conduct, for example, trading activities without taking deposits and who ought to be subject to the senior managers’ regime, the criminal sanction or the remuneration regime.

The amendment is an attempt to widen that scope. It was tabled before the letter dated 22 October from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, with its offer to set out a note. I think that that will probably deal with the question. I do not think that there is any real difference between us about what we want to cover. We want to make sure that we are covering not only ring-fenced banks but people running major investment bank trading operations, whether they be domestic, such as BarCap, or UBS or whatever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, we are slightly out of order because the noble Lord has not moved his amendment and started the debate. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to finish moving his amendment.

[Lord Turnbull]

I thought that I had started by begging to move Amendment 104E, but if I have not I shall do so now, and if that allows the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, to offer his clarification I should be very grateful. I beg to move.

[Lord Eatwell]

I usually try to be difficult. When I try to be helpful I am stopped. I was referring to the Bank of England response, published today, in which it says that,

“the Government’s legislative proposals in this area”—

this is referring to the senior persons regime which we talked about last time—

“will apply only to deposit takers but not to investment banks and insurance companies”.

So the Bank of England is clear that both the senior persons regime and, I presume, also the offences issue—for which I remember the same issue arose as to the definition of a bank—do not apply to investment banks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Turnbull]

My response to that is that it is completely unsatisfactory. We shall need to come back to it. I hope that there can be some discussion, maybe with officials in the Bill team. I am not satisfied that applying these various provisions simply to deposit takers covers all the areas of conduct that really need to be covered.

One other issue came to light in the course of this evening’s discussions about the remuneration regime. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, read out a list of people who are covered. Those are the people who are covered by the current remuneration regime. What was being proposed in my amendment was in effect a senior tier particularly for banking. Once you do that, you have to find a definition of a bank. I thought that we were a bit nearer to getting an answer until I heard from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. It is something we need to sort out, otherwise we shall find a serious area of misconduct in an investment banking area only to be told that when we legislated we forgot to cover these kinds of people. That would be completely unacceptable.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I thought that I read out virtually verbatim last week what the noble Lord has read out from the Bank of England. We are going to confirm that in a letter. However the most important point is the one that the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, raised about the scope of the senior managers regime and the criminal offence that goes with it. I can confirm now what I attempted to say last time, that my Treasury colleagues are considering the scope of the new regime and of the new criminal offence of reckless misconduct in the management of a bank in the light of the previous debate. I can assure the House that they take your Lordships’ views extremely seriously.

[Lord Turnbull]

I infer that I should pay more attention to the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, of 22 October than I should pay to the Bank of England’s response, because I think the former is a more constructive response than that of the Bank of England. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 104E.

Amendment 104E withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Turnbull]

Because of the piecemeal way in which the Bill has been constructed, we now have a piecemeal presentation of the secondary legislation procedure as it applies to each bit—and I have completely lost track of it. The first thing that needs to be done is to set out, for the whole Bill—the bits that were there originally and the bits that have been added—what the secondary legislation provisions are. Then we can make a judgment on whether they are appropriate: whether the right things have been assigned to the negative procedure and the right things assigned to the positive procedure. However, it is virtually impossible to do this on the basis of this piecemeal presentation.

Amendment 114 raises enormous issues. The Minister is shaking his head and may try to reassure us, but there are important provisions here that need to go to various committees which we have set up in this House to examine such things.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, three issues have been raised. The first is whether we have responded to the Delegated Powers Committee. I explained at some length last week what the Government’s response was. Subsequently, I wrote to the chair of the committee, reiterating what I had said. I am sorry if noble Lords have not seen the letter; I will make sure that it gets to them. I will repeat what I said and what the letter said.

The Government’s view, bearing in mind that the committee said it was for the House to decide and did not make a recommendation on the procedure to be followed, is that, given the technical nature of these statutory instruments, the best way forward, in the light of the Government’s response to the consultation process that they have just completed, is to invite noble Lords who are interested in the secondary legislation to the Treasury to have an informal discussion on the issues, and to see what they feel might be done, and whether any amendments are required. The Treasury does not have a fixed view on the detailed provision of that secondary legislation, and would welcome the further views of Members of your Lordships’ House.

Secondly, I find literally incredible the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that the Government took no account of the recommendations of the PCBS.